Thank you for this. I keep being told I am a conservative by persons younger than myself. Not a chance. I am old-style liberal, more or less, if forced to choose a label. You’ve painted a very clear picture of what it means to question anything. When I asked what my former school meant by its support of “gender diversity” I got a quiveringly indignant answer about recognizing everyone’s gender is different and did I want us all to be the same! Was I also a racist? No, just disgusted by the use of puberty blockers on children and adolescents, who are rendered infertile and anorgasmic
I’m almost speechless, trying to express how incredible this piece is. I feel understood, which is something I’m not all that used to, what with all the clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right. Thank you, young lady.
I walked away from the Left for good in 2020. I think critically and have always been an outlier. I have come to realize that Conservative values are the most ethical and rational there are. Conservatism brings free markets, Liberty and our God-given Rights (meaning they do NOT come from the govt), personal responsibility, conservation of resources, family and America 1st are the priorities, the Golden Rule, and the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the greatest documents ever conceived and written.
Therefore, I am a proud Constitutional Conservative.
Conservatives believe in Freedom for themselves including the right their right to tell other people how to live their lives. They are still deeply anti-Gay.
Rick, Conservatives believe in the Right to Freedom for all citizens and want everyone to live their lives as they see fit unless it infringes on another's Pursuit of Happiness or is illegal. The vast majority of Conservatives are not at all anti-Gay, quite the opposite, however, we do not believe that any group should have special Rights beyond what we all have.
It is the far Left, the communists, who want to dictate everything we do; from forcing people to use incorrect pronouns, rescinding the Rights of females in sports, to racist policies like DEI (Didn't Earn It) that prioritize immutable characteristics vs meritocracy, forcing Americans to forgo gas stoves, just to name a few. No Conservative wants any of this. We want Freedom for all.
The conservatives have already announced their plans to over turn Gay Rights which are based on Liberty as Justice Kennedy wrote in Lawrence v Texas. With Clarence Thomas as their spokesperson and no conservative in the country with the guts to disagree with him, it's clear that over-turning Lawrence v Texas is at the heart of the conservative agenda.
Here's what Gay Liberation is in fact based on. Justice Kennedy's opening paragraph made crystal clear Gay Rights are based on solely on Liberty and not on shred on Equality, Equity, etc.
" Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions."
Some Gay Poverty Pimps push the hideous Woke DEI, but that it not what Gays want; it's want Pelosi and the Woke racists want. Conservatives still peddle the lie that we want Special Rights, when our rights begin and end with inalienable rights which leading conservatives are trying to repeal. If there were any truth in what you say about inalienable rights for each person, then you would public oppose Thomas and openly support Gay Liberation based on Liberty while helping Gay to rid us and everyone else of Wokeism and bigots like Clarence Thomas.
Gays ARE Liberated. They are completely equal under the law so what in the world are you talking about? Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the most moral and ethical individuals on Earth. He is always Constitutionally focused, which ALL justices should be but, infuriatingly, they are not. It is shocking to hear anyone call him a bigot. He is the furthest thing from that. I do not appreciate your ad hominem attacks but they do show how weak your arguments are.
I know of no Conservative, or Populist, that has ever spoken about overturning Lawrence v Texas. The woke maoist communist Left are constantly pushing for special dispensations as the Tyranny of the Minority but they do not represent the majority of LBG, like my sister. Conservatives are for Liberty for everyone. Who, exactly, is trying to strip LBG Liberties?
Your comments sound like you are looking for a fight that does not exist.
Here in UK all but tbe most extreme of conservatives challenge gay riights. Why would they? Our tradition is far less puritanical than usa, here's its generally live and let live. You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Religion, should and is widely regarded as quaint and private, quite rightly. The idea that religious groups become dominant in politics, executive or legislative society is ludicrous. Thankfully.
I concur but the idea that you don't have religious groups entering politics is changing. UK is seeing a surge of Islamics who do not want to assimilate but to dominate. They openly admit they want sharia law for all.
50/50 is not that great for a fundamental Liberty. How many conservatives have spoken out against Justice Thomas? I've seen zero. Maybe I missed their statements.
"Not that great for a fundamental human right" LOL right, as though that's ab age-old moral principle.
As recently as 25 years ago the overall nationwide support for same sex marriage was only 27%. And it was just 13 and a half short years ago, in 2008, that voters in CALIFORNIA—that hidebound old redoubt of Christian conservatism🙄—affirmed marriage as between a man and a Woman only, on a ballot question.
The fact that a majority of Republicans have ALREADY come around to supporting same-sex marriage—in less than a generation since supermajorities of both parties deeply disapproved of it—bespeaks the opposite of everything you conclude about conservatives and Republican voters.
As you pointed out, in a few years everything an change and Thomas and Alito are making that change. Alito's Dobbs decision is a retread of the Dred Scott Decision from 1857. When Alito and Thomas are willing to reach back to 1857, they will surely overturn Gay Liberation advances the first chance they get. However, do not both to actually read Supreme Court cases; they just cheer or boo the results while remaining totally ignorant of the reasoning. When GOP in large numbers start criticizing Alito and Thomas, then they will be taking a stand based on Liberty.
It is truly suspect that you are tearing down the two most Constitutionally focused Justices. They are standing in the abyss between totalitarianism and Liberty.
And why are you only concerned with gays who've already achieved equal status and protections in all areas under the law?
Thank you, you are the best of America and what American spirit should stand for. I became American in 2022 and proudly. There is no other country I would like to raise my kids in (born and raised in France, 12 years in vancouver and now in the US). Our young people must be taught how to think for themselves and because school and colleges don’t seem to support that mission anymore, we, parents, must take on that challenge.
One of the reasons I am not one of those people who complain constantly about the Culture Wars is that I recognize the value of thinking on your feet. Only those with curiosity and humility will come to realize what you have. "Everything they taught me was a lie." It's not ironic that a serious illness sharpens the mind. Wait until you have an ill child. Intellectual laziness and foolishness are part of the human condition. Stay alert, think your way forward. You're on the path to truth.
Kiyah, what a fantastic life path! Thank You for sharing! I am politically free. I take the time to learn people's intentions to understand where they are coming from. You are so right about the perspective on politics—it is all religious thinking. Most people don't know how difficult it is to reason because we naturally intuit and group-think so much that we cannot see it. People look for shortcuts to show they are good when the reality of being a good person is so complex and a never-ending journey.
Thanks for writing this. Like you, I'm extremely frustrated with political labels. I used to consider myself a conservative. Why? Because I thought it meant several of the things you embrace, especially the importance of the individual and the value of capitalism to genuinely help everyone. But you're absolutely right that the label "conservative", these days, is embraced by those who indulge in the behaviors you describe. I want nothing to do with most of what passes for right-leaning thought these days. So I left. But not to join "the other side"; my disagreements with leftism remain intact because I genuinely feel that most of the left agenda is deeply flawed, destructive to the communities it purports to help, and awash in mindless virtue-signaling. Fortunately, since the great awokening and the right-wing response to it, a number of thoughtful publications have arisen, including this Substack. There are a lot of serious and humane writers out there, refugees from the older left and older right who have remained true to core liberal principles. That gives me hope that some semblance of sanity might return to the public sphere and your essay is a glimmer of hope in that regard. Best of luck to you going forward!
It's very encouraging to see my mirror image, moving from dogmatism on the other side, to the nuanced independent middle, where each issue needs to be argued rationally, rather than following a party line as needed to stay part of the tribe.
Nicely done, Kiyah, and thank you for sharing some of your powerful experiences of the last several years. Have you read "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt, PhD? I found the book quite helpful. I learned that I can understand others' views (and my own!) a little better by getting some context. Even larger, I realized that, as much as we like to think so, our perspectives are not always rational, and therefore do not yield to reason.
That was one of the impactful books on me in decades. Highly recommended.
It helped me see some of my own cultural blind spots. (not all of course, it's an ongoing process).
I found it highly readable but dense with insights; I stopped hilighting my copy after the first chapters seemed to be more marked than unmarked :-)
I also found it intriguing as it traced the co-evolving intellectual trajectory of the author, Haidt, and his field, Moral Psychology, over time as theory after theory was cleverly tested against evidence. I had no idea where it would land - validating liberal or conservative perspectives for example. (Neither or both would be my answer at the end).
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing! Glad you were able to “wake up” and get out of the cult. Idk why more people can’t think for themselves. How have we created a generation of idiots who just follow woke ideology blindly? It’s scary and sad. And I’m sure many are struggling with what you went through, but don’t know how to get out. They have to give up their friends and their social networks if they leave. It’s a crazy situation and I can’t figure out who’s pushing the agenda. It can’t be organic. Someone(s) or something is behind it.
It's unfortunate that we tend to collapse the question of whether we should treat physical and emotional harm the same with the question of whether emotional harm is as painful as physical harm.
Of fucking course emotional pain is as bad, often worse, than physical pain. I mean would you prefer to get beaten up -- even pretty painfully -- or find out your spouse doesn't love you? Which is worse, accidentally getting elbowed hard in the face or walking in on your partner fooling around behind your back?
It's not that emotional pain is less bad, it's that rules barring physical harm are relatively easy to make and enforce without causing other worse problems. A law against assault or physically abusing your partner is all upside. A law that bans leaving your spouse has serious downsides.
The error made on the left isn't that we shouldn't be careful about other people's feelings. It's the assumption only certain kinds of feelings count. For instance, that the feelings of the female patient who feels anxious about being seen by a trans-woman don't count.
And yes, it might be better if people didn't have certain reactions/emotions but we have to face the world as it is. It probably really does hurt the feelings of trans woman healthcare providers but the same requests no doubt hurt the feelings of male healthcare providers too -- as if they are somehow more dangerous or less caring because of their gender -- but in those cases we reasonably prioritize the feelings of the patient.
Unfortunately, too often people who decide that the left is making a mistake jump to the other extreme and start dismissing a different set of feelings as irrelevant rather than accepting the world is complicated and we often need to balance competing interests. I'm glad you don't seem to have gone that way.
This was quite an eye-opener. I hadn’t realized the extent to which political views other than woke madness and Trumpy madness have been denied to the younger generation, so much so that they don’t know what the center, center-left and center-right even are!
The center is not a “middle point between crazy and crazy” it is exactly what you want - an insistence on sanity, rationality and pragmatism. I formed my politics before social media existed and I am very comfortable in the Democratic Party even though I despise wokeness, because I recognize that most elected Democrats are not actually woke. The activist wing of the party has lost it, but the elected officials mostly have not.
I’d advise you to check out writers like Matt Yglesias and Noah Smith to get acquainted with the center-left!
I will also note that it’s easier to see that the political spectrum is in fact a spectrum if you are familiar with all its gradations - center, center-left, center-right, left, right, extreme left, extreme right, and pure extreme. If the extreme left and extreme right are all you know, I can see how you can mistakenly think it’s a binary.
I’m pretty sure social media algorithms are at fault here, for amplifying extremists because they are “engaging” and sending moderate voices to the bottom of the pile. Things were very different when I was a kid in the 90s - back then, mainstream media gatekeepers amplified the moderate voices and suppressed the extremes.
First, I very much appreciate your essay, and resonated with much of it myself. I too moved away from today's progressivism, and wind up now as an independent rather than switching to the other tribe, largely due to critical thinking and observation.
I do have some thoughts about one small section, however, which I would like to share.
> "Conservatives often engage in identity politics as well. It’s common to see individuals on social media disparage the achievements of black people, attributing their success to affirmative action or DEI policies without evidence or consideration of the individual’s merits. They make assumptions based solely on race, mirroring the flawed privileged-oppressed hierarchy often associated with the left. "
1. "Identity politics" is a concept of dividing people into intersectional groups, ranking them on an oppression scale (where more asserted oppression is indistinguishable from more virtue), and then playing them off against each other as a tool intended to create a better world, among other things. It's a different concept than the timeless and universal pitfalls of making assumptions or stereotyping (even if both are problematic). Perhaps you could have said "Conservatives also promote some stereotypes".
2. "disparaging the achievements of black people" - I don't see much disparagement of relatively objective achievements (creating an effective treatment for a disease, writing an inspiring novel, performing a first ascent of a rock face). I do see people doubt the achievement involved in a mediocre scholar with poor adminstrative skills becoming president of an Ivy League college in what appears to be an example of racial preference (or virtue signalling on the part of those making the appointment) rather than personal merit. We should be careful not to encourage conflating these.
3. We also need to distinguish estimations of probability from firm conclusions. For example, it would be sad mistake to conclude without evidence that every black person has gotten their position based more on race rather than merit. But it could be a rational assessment to assume that it's relatively more likely in today's society, if the job is high status. I agree that each indivdiual should be judged on individual evidence, and given a fair chance until such evidence is available.
Think of a boss's close relative being hired; that person will understandably be suspected of being hired based on nepotism. That initial suspicion is not irrational, in the absense of evidence either way. But it should dissipate if over time they prove themselves capable; holding onto it despite known evidence of their merit *would* be irrational.
I truly feel for competent people inaccurately suspected of being hired to fulfill diversity quotas. Both because of possible suspection from coworkers, and also because they themselves may be unsure if they were really the best candidate so may not feel secure. But the situation is not their fault!
It's the fault of the actual diversity quota hiring people have observed in their "lived experience". If coworkers believe that their employer really hires on merit without diversity quotas, they won't have that suspicion. And it's not very functional to try to suppress (well founded) suspicion by pretending that it's irrational or hateful. And obviously, the managers can't say "Don't give Lee a hard time, they were actually hired on merit and really were the best candidate" - because that would be admitting it's not the case with earlier hire Terry.
The connection here is that being rationally suspicious that a common process may have occurred in a given case (absent evidence either way) is not unique to conservatives or conservative thinking.
4. "They make assumptions based solely on race, mirroring the flawed privileged-oppressed hierarchy" - This needs to be nuanced a good deal. "Mirror" is an ambiguous term in this. Suspecting that manager X may have made a decision based on a privileged/oppressed hierarchy or solely based on race, is NOT at all the same as agreeing with that privileged/oppressed hierarchy or as promoting hiring solely on race. It's not "doing the same thing" nor a "mirror image".
As I said, I feel for people whose hiring (promotion, etc) is actually based on competence being falsely suspected of benefitting from racial preferences. That sucks and from their viewpoint (knowing their own competentce) is unfair. But the villian in that scenario is not those observing the racialized hiring phenomenon, but those creating it - those promoting racial preferences in hiring. And the only way to ever stop the (spoken or unspoken) initial suspicion is to stop the preferences. (Of course, for the person in question, performing competently over time can overcome any initial suspicion).
And again - I really like the overall essay; this short paragraph is the only part which struck me as needing more thought.
Excellent essay--this is a very thoughtful piece. It's unfortunate that rationality, individualism and classical liberalism are now coded as conservative. They used to be bulwarks against the right and now they're bulwarkso against both left and right.
I guess I could say that I left the left, too, but I feel like the left left me, especially during the dark times (ACLU coming out in favor of mandates was the final straw). But I also think the left went mad, sooner than I realized, and I hung on longer than I should have. TDS is dangerous. Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Thank you for this. I keep being told I am a conservative by persons younger than myself. Not a chance. I am old-style liberal, more or less, if forced to choose a label. You’ve painted a very clear picture of what it means to question anything. When I asked what my former school meant by its support of “gender diversity” I got a quiveringly indignant answer about recognizing everyone’s gender is different and did I want us all to be the same! Was I also a racist? No, just disgusted by the use of puberty blockers on children and adolescents, who are rendered infertile and anorgasmic
I’m almost speechless, trying to express how incredible this piece is. I feel understood, which is something I’m not all that used to, what with all the clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right. Thank you, young lady.
I walked away from the Left for good in 2020. I think critically and have always been an outlier. I have come to realize that Conservative values are the most ethical and rational there are. Conservatism brings free markets, Liberty and our God-given Rights (meaning they do NOT come from the govt), personal responsibility, conservation of resources, family and America 1st are the priorities, the Golden Rule, and the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the greatest documents ever conceived and written.
Therefore, I am a proud Constitutional Conservative.
Conservatives believe in Freedom for themselves including the right their right to tell other people how to live their lives. They are still deeply anti-Gay.
Rick, Conservatives believe in the Right to Freedom for all citizens and want everyone to live their lives as they see fit unless it infringes on another's Pursuit of Happiness or is illegal. The vast majority of Conservatives are not at all anti-Gay, quite the opposite, however, we do not believe that any group should have special Rights beyond what we all have.
It is the far Left, the communists, who want to dictate everything we do; from forcing people to use incorrect pronouns, rescinding the Rights of females in sports, to racist policies like DEI (Didn't Earn It) that prioritize immutable characteristics vs meritocracy, forcing Americans to forgo gas stoves, just to name a few. No Conservative wants any of this. We want Freedom for all.
The conservatives have already announced their plans to over turn Gay Rights which are based on Liberty as Justice Kennedy wrote in Lawrence v Texas. With Clarence Thomas as their spokesperson and no conservative in the country with the guts to disagree with him, it's clear that over-turning Lawrence v Texas is at the heart of the conservative agenda.
Here's what Gay Liberation is in fact based on. Justice Kennedy's opening paragraph made crystal clear Gay Rights are based on solely on Liberty and not on shred on Equality, Equity, etc.
" Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions."
Some Gay Poverty Pimps push the hideous Woke DEI, but that it not what Gays want; it's want Pelosi and the Woke racists want. Conservatives still peddle the lie that we want Special Rights, when our rights begin and end with inalienable rights which leading conservatives are trying to repeal. If there were any truth in what you say about inalienable rights for each person, then you would public oppose Thomas and openly support Gay Liberation based on Liberty while helping Gay to rid us and everyone else of Wokeism and bigots like Clarence Thomas.
Gays ARE Liberated. They are completely equal under the law so what in the world are you talking about? Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the most moral and ethical individuals on Earth. He is always Constitutionally focused, which ALL justices should be but, infuriatingly, they are not. It is shocking to hear anyone call him a bigot. He is the furthest thing from that. I do not appreciate your ad hominem attacks but they do show how weak your arguments are.
I know of no Conservative, or Populist, that has ever spoken about overturning Lawrence v Texas. The woke maoist communist Left are constantly pushing for special dispensations as the Tyranny of the Minority but they do not represent the majority of LBG, like my sister. Conservatives are for Liberty for everyone. Who, exactly, is trying to strip LBG Liberties?
Your comments sound like you are looking for a fight that does not exist.
Here in UK all but tbe most extreme of conservatives challenge gay riights. Why would they? Our tradition is far less puritanical than usa, here's its generally live and let live. You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Religion, should and is widely regarded as quaint and private, quite rightly. The idea that religious groups become dominant in politics, executive or legislative society is ludicrous. Thankfully.
I concur but the idea that you don't have religious groups entering politics is changing. UK is seeing a surge of Islamics who do not want to assimilate but to dominate. They openly admit they want sharia law for all.
I'm not so sure. 4m people here have a right to have their say. Numbers who want sharia law is tiny.
The proportion of registered Republicans who approve of same-sex marriage broke 50% in 2021.
50/50 is not that great for a fundamental Liberty. How many conservatives have spoken out against Justice Thomas? I've seen zero. Maybe I missed their statements.
"Not that great for a fundamental human right" LOL right, as though that's ab age-old moral principle.
As recently as 25 years ago the overall nationwide support for same sex marriage was only 27%. And it was just 13 and a half short years ago, in 2008, that voters in CALIFORNIA—that hidebound old redoubt of Christian conservatism🙄—affirmed marriage as between a man and a Woman only, on a ballot question.
The fact that a majority of Republicans have ALREADY come around to supporting same-sex marriage—in less than a generation since supermajorities of both parties deeply disapproved of it—bespeaks the opposite of everything you conclude about conservatives and Republican voters.
Concur.
As you pointed out, in a few years everything an change and Thomas and Alito are making that change. Alito's Dobbs decision is a retread of the Dred Scott Decision from 1857. When Alito and Thomas are willing to reach back to 1857, they will surely overturn Gay Liberation advances the first chance they get. However, do not both to actually read Supreme Court cases; they just cheer or boo the results while remaining totally ignorant of the reasoning. When GOP in large numbers start criticizing Alito and Thomas, then they will be taking a stand based on Liberty.
It is truly suspect that you are tearing down the two most Constitutionally focused Justices. They are standing in the abyss between totalitarianism and Liberty.
And why are you only concerned with gays who've already achieved equal status and protections in all areas under the law?
Thank you, you are the best of America and what American spirit should stand for. I became American in 2022 and proudly. There is no other country I would like to raise my kids in (born and raised in France, 12 years in vancouver and now in the US). Our young people must be taught how to think for themselves and because school and colleges don’t seem to support that mission anymore, we, parents, must take on that challenge.
One of the reasons I am not one of those people who complain constantly about the Culture Wars is that I recognize the value of thinking on your feet. Only those with curiosity and humility will come to realize what you have. "Everything they taught me was a lie." It's not ironic that a serious illness sharpens the mind. Wait until you have an ill child. Intellectual laziness and foolishness are part of the human condition. Stay alert, think your way forward. You're on the path to truth.
Kiyah, what a fantastic life path! Thank You for sharing! I am politically free. I take the time to learn people's intentions to understand where they are coming from. You are so right about the perspective on politics—it is all religious thinking. Most people don't know how difficult it is to reason because we naturally intuit and group-think so much that we cannot see it. People look for shortcuts to show they are good when the reality of being a good person is so complex and a never-ending journey.
Politically free: a great way to phrase it and an excellent way to be.
Thanks for writing this. Like you, I'm extremely frustrated with political labels. I used to consider myself a conservative. Why? Because I thought it meant several of the things you embrace, especially the importance of the individual and the value of capitalism to genuinely help everyone. But you're absolutely right that the label "conservative", these days, is embraced by those who indulge in the behaviors you describe. I want nothing to do with most of what passes for right-leaning thought these days. So I left. But not to join "the other side"; my disagreements with leftism remain intact because I genuinely feel that most of the left agenda is deeply flawed, destructive to the communities it purports to help, and awash in mindless virtue-signaling. Fortunately, since the great awokening and the right-wing response to it, a number of thoughtful publications have arisen, including this Substack. There are a lot of serious and humane writers out there, refugees from the older left and older right who have remained true to core liberal principles. That gives me hope that some semblance of sanity might return to the public sphere and your essay is a glimmer of hope in that regard. Best of luck to you going forward!
It's very encouraging to see my mirror image, moving from dogmatism on the other side, to the nuanced independent middle, where each issue needs to be argued rationally, rather than following a party line as needed to stay part of the tribe.
Nicely done, Kiyah, and thank you for sharing some of your powerful experiences of the last several years. Have you read "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt, PhD? I found the book quite helpful. I learned that I can understand others' views (and my own!) a little better by getting some context. Even larger, I realized that, as much as we like to think so, our perspectives are not always rational, and therefore do not yield to reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind
That was one of the impactful books on me in decades. Highly recommended.
It helped me see some of my own cultural blind spots. (not all of course, it's an ongoing process).
I found it highly readable but dense with insights; I stopped hilighting my copy after the first chapters seemed to be more marked than unmarked :-)
I also found it intriguing as it traced the co-evolving intellectual trajectory of the author, Haidt, and his field, Moral Psychology, over time as theory after theory was cleverly tested against evidence. I had no idea where it would land - validating liberal or conservative perspectives for example. (Neither or both would be my answer at the end).
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing! Glad you were able to “wake up” and get out of the cult. Idk why more people can’t think for themselves. How have we created a generation of idiots who just follow woke ideology blindly? It’s scary and sad. And I’m sure many are struggling with what you went through, but don’t know how to get out. They have to give up their friends and their social networks if they leave. It’s a crazy situation and I can’t figure out who’s pushing the agenda. It can’t be organic. Someone(s) or something is behind it.
It's unfortunate that we tend to collapse the question of whether we should treat physical and emotional harm the same with the question of whether emotional harm is as painful as physical harm.
Of fucking course emotional pain is as bad, often worse, than physical pain. I mean would you prefer to get beaten up -- even pretty painfully -- or find out your spouse doesn't love you? Which is worse, accidentally getting elbowed hard in the face or walking in on your partner fooling around behind your back?
It's not that emotional pain is less bad, it's that rules barring physical harm are relatively easy to make and enforce without causing other worse problems. A law against assault or physically abusing your partner is all upside. A law that bans leaving your spouse has serious downsides.
The error made on the left isn't that we shouldn't be careful about other people's feelings. It's the assumption only certain kinds of feelings count. For instance, that the feelings of the female patient who feels anxious about being seen by a trans-woman don't count.
And yes, it might be better if people didn't have certain reactions/emotions but we have to face the world as it is. It probably really does hurt the feelings of trans woman healthcare providers but the same requests no doubt hurt the feelings of male healthcare providers too -- as if they are somehow more dangerous or less caring because of their gender -- but in those cases we reasonably prioritize the feelings of the patient.
Unfortunately, too often people who decide that the left is making a mistake jump to the other extreme and start dismissing a different set of feelings as irrelevant rather than accepting the world is complicated and we often need to balance competing interests. I'm glad you don't seem to have gone that way.
Love this statement "I don’t think of myself as halfway between crazy and crazy". Thank you for sharing your experience and insights.
Welcome! Sometimes it’s not so hard being homeless!
This was quite an eye-opener. I hadn’t realized the extent to which political views other than woke madness and Trumpy madness have been denied to the younger generation, so much so that they don’t know what the center, center-left and center-right even are!
The center is not a “middle point between crazy and crazy” it is exactly what you want - an insistence on sanity, rationality and pragmatism. I formed my politics before social media existed and I am very comfortable in the Democratic Party even though I despise wokeness, because I recognize that most elected Democrats are not actually woke. The activist wing of the party has lost it, but the elected officials mostly have not.
I’d advise you to check out writers like Matt Yglesias and Noah Smith to get acquainted with the center-left!
I will also note that it’s easier to see that the political spectrum is in fact a spectrum if you are familiar with all its gradations - center, center-left, center-right, left, right, extreme left, extreme right, and pure extreme. If the extreme left and extreme right are all you know, I can see how you can mistakenly think it’s a binary.
I’m pretty sure social media algorithms are at fault here, for amplifying extremists because they are “engaging” and sending moderate voices to the bottom of the pile. Things were very different when I was a kid in the 90s - back then, mainstream media gatekeepers amplified the moderate voices and suppressed the extremes.
First, I very much appreciate your essay, and resonated with much of it myself. I too moved away from today's progressivism, and wind up now as an independent rather than switching to the other tribe, largely due to critical thinking and observation.
I do have some thoughts about one small section, however, which I would like to share.
> "Conservatives often engage in identity politics as well. It’s common to see individuals on social media disparage the achievements of black people, attributing their success to affirmative action or DEI policies without evidence or consideration of the individual’s merits. They make assumptions based solely on race, mirroring the flawed privileged-oppressed hierarchy often associated with the left. "
1. "Identity politics" is a concept of dividing people into intersectional groups, ranking them on an oppression scale (where more asserted oppression is indistinguishable from more virtue), and then playing them off against each other as a tool intended to create a better world, among other things. It's a different concept than the timeless and universal pitfalls of making assumptions or stereotyping (even if both are problematic). Perhaps you could have said "Conservatives also promote some stereotypes".
2. "disparaging the achievements of black people" - I don't see much disparagement of relatively objective achievements (creating an effective treatment for a disease, writing an inspiring novel, performing a first ascent of a rock face). I do see people doubt the achievement involved in a mediocre scholar with poor adminstrative skills becoming president of an Ivy League college in what appears to be an example of racial preference (or virtue signalling on the part of those making the appointment) rather than personal merit. We should be careful not to encourage conflating these.
3. We also need to distinguish estimations of probability from firm conclusions. For example, it would be sad mistake to conclude without evidence that every black person has gotten their position based more on race rather than merit. But it could be a rational assessment to assume that it's relatively more likely in today's society, if the job is high status. I agree that each indivdiual should be judged on individual evidence, and given a fair chance until such evidence is available.
Think of a boss's close relative being hired; that person will understandably be suspected of being hired based on nepotism. That initial suspicion is not irrational, in the absense of evidence either way. But it should dissipate if over time they prove themselves capable; holding onto it despite known evidence of their merit *would* be irrational.
I truly feel for competent people inaccurately suspected of being hired to fulfill diversity quotas. Both because of possible suspection from coworkers, and also because they themselves may be unsure if they were really the best candidate so may not feel secure. But the situation is not their fault!
It's the fault of the actual diversity quota hiring people have observed in their "lived experience". If coworkers believe that their employer really hires on merit without diversity quotas, they won't have that suspicion. And it's not very functional to try to suppress (well founded) suspicion by pretending that it's irrational or hateful. And obviously, the managers can't say "Don't give Lee a hard time, they were actually hired on merit and really were the best candidate" - because that would be admitting it's not the case with earlier hire Terry.
The connection here is that being rationally suspicious that a common process may have occurred in a given case (absent evidence either way) is not unique to conservatives or conservative thinking.
4. "They make assumptions based solely on race, mirroring the flawed privileged-oppressed hierarchy" - This needs to be nuanced a good deal. "Mirror" is an ambiguous term in this. Suspecting that manager X may have made a decision based on a privileged/oppressed hierarchy or solely based on race, is NOT at all the same as agreeing with that privileged/oppressed hierarchy or as promoting hiring solely on race. It's not "doing the same thing" nor a "mirror image".
As I said, I feel for people whose hiring (promotion, etc) is actually based on competence being falsely suspected of benefitting from racial preferences. That sucks and from their viewpoint (knowing their own competentce) is unfair. But the villian in that scenario is not those observing the racialized hiring phenomenon, but those creating it - those promoting racial preferences in hiring. And the only way to ever stop the (spoken or unspoken) initial suspicion is to stop the preferences. (Of course, for the person in question, performing competently over time can overcome any initial suspicion).
And again - I really like the overall essay; this short paragraph is the only part which struck me as needing more thought.
Excellent essay--this is a very thoughtful piece. It's unfortunate that rationality, individualism and classical liberalism are now coded as conservative. They used to be bulwarks against the right and now they're bulwarkso against both left and right.
I guess I could say that I left the left, too, but I feel like the left left me, especially during the dark times (ACLU coming out in favor of mandates was the final straw). But I also think the left went mad, sooner than I realized, and I hung on longer than I should have. TDS is dangerous. Thanks for the thoughtful post.